LM-2023-000035 - [2025] EWHC 1989 (Comm)

Fecha: 28-Jul-2025

Findings on the first issue

Findings on the first issue

64.

In light of the chronology as I have set it out, I am satisfied, applying the tests set out above and subject to issues of authority which I deal with below, that Xtellus contracted with the Defendant.

65.

A reasonable person, furnished with the relevant information could only conclude that the Defendant was contracting with Xtellus. The evidence is overwhelming. I regard the following points as decisive:

The presentation sent to Xtellus on 6 May 2021 was plainly intended to provide information about the party with whom Xtellus was contracting, and for whom Xtellus would go into the marketplace looking for funders.

The presentation was of DL Invest Group as a corporate body and not simply a brand. That is clear from the fact that it has a corporate group structure, was audited and has a credit rating. Objectively read, it showed that DL Invest Group was synonymous with the Defendant as shown by the AAA certificate.

The later presentation sent on 2 July 2021 did nothing to change the position and in fact, by providing the name and details of the Defendant on the contact page underlined the impression created by the first presentation.

Everyone dealing with the Mandate from the counterparty’s side was (to the informed observer) dealing on behalf of the Defendant. There was no hint or suggestion that they might be dealing on behalf of another body.

It is obvious that all negotiations were with the Defendant and that the Defendant was synonymous with DL Invest Group.

Any suggestion that the counterparty was CCI (the only suggested alternative) is fanciful and without any evidential foundation.

66.

I reject Dominik Leszczyński’s evidence that Katarzyna Dorosz-Wosiek and Blazej Stodulkiewicz were each working for him or for CCI when dealing with the Mandate. Even if that was right (which I do not accept) there was absolutely no outward sign of it.

67.

I find that the decision to change CCI’s name to DLIGDL was made shortly before the name change took effect, after the Xtellus demand for payment had been received and in order to bolster the obviously weak argument that DLIGDL was all along intended to be the counterparty.

68.

I find that Wirginia Leszczyńska signed the Mandate (or should be treated as having signed it because she instructed Agata Pedzic to attach her electronic signature to it) and was content to do so. If the Mandate had not been with the Defendant, Wirginia Leszczyńska would had have had no reason to sign it. To the extent that her evidence was otherwise, I reject it.